An Urgent Call for I-O Psychologists to Produce Timelier Technology Research

Abstract

The rapid pace at which technology changes creates a challenge for I-O psychologists, who often conduct hypothetico-deductive research. In this article, we examine technology research in the I-O psychology community by asking three questions: “Why should I-O psychologists study new technologies?,” “How timely is I-O psychologists’ technology research?,” and “How can I-O psychologists produce timelier technology research?” Using archival data from 23 years of SIOP conferences and a historical timeline of technology innovations, we find that I-O psychologists study technology milestones an average of 6.10 years after they first enter widespread awareness and adoption. We discuss the implications of this lag and conclude by urging I-O psychologists to study technology with an eye toward action, exploration, collaboration, dissemination, and creation.

Too early to call: What we do (not) know about the validity of cybervetting

“…We share Wilcox et al's (2022) view that job candidates are not responsible for evaluating the accuracy of cybervetting; this is the responsibility of I-O psychology, specifically with respect to testing propositions empirically, addressing moderators as well as mediators, and informing practitioners about findings. Furthermore, we should take action fast (see White et al, 2022): Although cybervetting might be a rather new practice from a scientific point of view, it is not new to the organizations that do it. For that reason, above we offered suggestions on how to provide well-balanced conclusions about cybervetting.…”

Conceptual technology frameworks offer timelier and more influential research

“…Why technology frameworks provide timelier and more influential research White et al (2022) list explanations for why technology research is slow; we noticed several stem from a lack of testable hypotheses. We agree that not having testable hypotheses makes it difficult for researchers and reviewers to evaluate a project's merit.…”

Catching up in two races: Applying technology design approaches to design technology research

“…I appreciate White et al's (2022) recommendation for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to approach technology research in a more active ("action, exploration, creation") and collective ("collaborate, disseminate") way. However, I doubt whether White et al's (and many I-O psychologists') idea to conceptualize technology as a boundary condition for psychological theories and human action is an appropriate basis for timely theorizing, examining, and supporting technology application at work.…”

“…Then I use a current project on digitalization in health care to illustrate how design science may help to create timelier technology research. "Technology as context," "technology as design," and running in two races White et al (2022) suggest conceptualizing technology "as a boundary condition" (p. X) and argue (at times) in a deterministic tradition. Landers and Marin (2021) labeled this approach "technology-as-context" approach because it implies that technologies emerge outside of the organization (e.g., technological innovations), are selected by stakeholders to realize pregiven purposes (e.g., increase efficacy), and influence their users through their effects on work design features (e.g., increase autonomy or reduce privacy; see Model 1 in Figure 1).…”

“…This approach (see also Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) suggests that it is more appropriate to view technology implementation in terms of technologies' affordances (i.e., specific design characteristics that gain value by providing what a specific user needs to fulfil a purpose; Greeno, 1994); users' and intended users' skills, motives, and preferences; and how technology and users might change over time (see Model 2 in Figure 1). White et al (2022) describe the need to catch up with technological innovations to produce timelier technology research. I think this is just one race I-O psychologists are in.…”